The US-Russia Agreement: Let's Stick to a Diplomatic Solution
Published in Ryukyu Shimpo
(Japan) on 16 September 2013
by Editorial (link to original)
The tense international situation over Syria has approached a turning point toward a political resolution. The U.S. and Russia have agreed to a framework in which Syria, under international control, must completely dispose of the chemical weapons in its possession by the middle of next year.
In this way, U.S. military intervention in Syria has been avoided for the time being. Relations between the U.S. and Russia have deteriorated over the exile of a former employee of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), but they have worked hard together to come up with a compromise. I want to directly evaluate this cooperative approach.
Syria’s Assad regime should implement the U.S.-Russia agreement without delay. I want the international community to continue stressing and reinforcing diplomatic efforts aimed at ending the civil war in Syria.
The U.S. and Russia coincide in their recognition that Syria is in possession of an estimated 1,000 tons of chemical weapons. They have demanded that the Assad regime report the type and volume of chemical weapons, storage sites, research and development facilities, and so forth within one week and require Syria to receive an international inspection by November this year.
Within the U.S., there is deep-rooted skepticism and suspicion of cover-ups regarding the Assad regime. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Assad regime, in preparation for an attack from the U.S., has been scattering chemical weapons storage sites since approximately one year ago.
Prior to the U.S.-Russia agreement, the Assad regime admitted to possession of chemical weapons and declared its intentions to participate in a chemical weapons ban. Camouflage and stalling for the purpose of avoiding a U.S. attack will by no means be tolerated. Russia holds strong influence over Syria and can also be described as having significant liability.
On the one hand, dissident groups in Syria are opposed to the U.S.-Russia agreement, and it’s a foregone conclusion that inspection activities during a civil war will be extremely difficult. Experts have suggested the deployment of a multinational force that would be responsible for the security of the chemical weapons and the safety of the inspectors, and so on.
Above all, international cooperation is essential to the technological and financial aspects of the disposal work. Japan, as well, must offer its technical know-how and supportive efforts within the range that our constitution permits.
With the current agreement, a change can be seen in the way that the U.S. engages with the global community. Until now, the U.S. has proclaimed its own righteousness and persisted in its principle of “American exceptionalism,” wherein the U.S. considers itself to be exceptional. Carrying out the complete disposal of chemical weapons without use of military force will greatly influence this behavioral principle of the U.S. from this point on. I assume President Obama will not exclude the option of military force, but he should pursue a diplomatic solution in accordance with international laws.
In this way, U.S. military intervention in Syria has been avoided for the time being. Relations between the U.S. and Russia have deteriorated over the exile of a former employee of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), but they have worked hard together to come up with a compromise. I want to directly evaluate this cooperative approach.
Syria’s Assad regime should implement the U.S.-Russia agreement without delay. I want the international community to continue stressing and reinforcing diplomatic efforts aimed at ending the civil war in Syria.
The U.S. and Russia coincide in their recognition that Syria is in possession of an estimated 1,000 tons of chemical weapons. They have demanded that the Assad regime report the type and volume of chemical weapons, storage sites, research and development facilities, and so forth within one week and require Syria to receive an international inspection by November this year.
Within the U.S., there is deep-rooted skepticism and suspicion of cover-ups regarding the Assad regime. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Assad regime, in preparation for an attack from the U.S., has been scattering chemical weapons storage sites since approximately one year ago.
Prior to the U.S.-Russia agreement, the Assad regime admitted to possession of chemical weapons and declared its intentions to participate in a chemical weapons ban. Camouflage and stalling for the purpose of avoiding a U.S. attack will by no means be tolerated. Russia holds strong influence over Syria and can also be described as having significant liability.
On the one hand, dissident groups in Syria are opposed to the U.S.-Russia agreement, and it’s a foregone conclusion that inspection activities during a civil war will be extremely difficult. Experts have suggested the deployment of a multinational force that would be responsible for the security of the chemical weapons and the safety of the inspectors, and so on.
Above all, international cooperation is essential to the technological and financial aspects of the disposal work. Japan, as well, must offer its technical know-how and supportive efforts within the range that our constitution permits.
With the current agreement, a change can be seen in the way that the U.S. engages with the global community. Until now, the U.S. has proclaimed its own righteousness and persisted in its principle of “American exceptionalism,” wherein the U.S. considers itself to be exceptional. Carrying out the complete disposal of chemical weapons without use of military force will greatly influence this behavioral principle of the U.S. from this point on. I assume President Obama will not exclude the option of military force, but he should pursue a diplomatic solution in accordance with international laws.